Nasal Endoscopy in Congenital Dacryocystitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Controversy exists regarding the relationship between nasal pathology and congenital dacryocystitis. The recent advent of nasal endoscopes has greatly improved visualization of deep and hidden areas of nasal anatomy and has led to the elaboration of nasal anatomical variants and pathologies that were previously unknown. The current study aimed to evaluate for associations, if any, between anatomical abnormalities or variations in the lateral nasal wall and the presence and resolution of congenital dacryocystitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS Phase I was a case–control study that compared the incidence of a predefined set of nasal endoscopic variations in infants with congenital dacryocystitis versus normal infants. Phase II was a cohort study that evaluated the impact of nasal endoscopic variations on the effectiveness of conservative treatment for congenital dacryocystitis. “Failure” to respond to conservative treatment measures was defined as the persistence of symptoms at the first birthday. RESULTS Inferior turbinate hypertrophy and inferior meatal narrowing were significantly more frequent in the case group than in the control group. Conservative treatment measures resulted in 70 of 83 resolved cases on subsequent follow-up. The occurrence of inferior turbinate hypertrophy or inferior meatal narrowing at final examination was associated with non-resolution. The relative risk of non-resolution with inferior turbinate hypertrophy or inferior meatal narrowing was 7.7 (confidence interval, 2.32 to 25.72) and 12 (confidence interval, 3.7 to 39.2), respectively. CONCLUSION Inferior turbinate hypertrophy and inferior meatal narrowing are more frequent in cases of congenital dacryocystitis. They are predictive of a poor outcome when congenital dacryocystitis is treated with conservative measures. This information should be considered when making clinical decisions for patients with congenital dacryocystitis. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 2006;43:341-345. AUTHORS Drs. Ghose, Chhabra, Bajaj, and Pushker are from the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences; Drs. Thakar and Roy are from the Department of Otorhinolaryngology; and Dr. Singh is from the Department of Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. Originally submitted May 22, 2005. Accepted for publication June 20, 2005. Address reprint requests to Mandeep S. Bajaj, MD, and Alok Thakar, MBBS, MS, FRCS; All India Institute of Medical Sciences; New Delhi, India. Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Ophthalmological Society; June 16-19, 2004; Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".